Virtual Maneuvering Test in CFD Media in Presence of Free Surface

SNAK, 2015
Int. J. Nav. Archit. Ocean Eng. (2015) 7:540~558

http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/ijnaoe-2015-0039
pISSN: 2092-6782, eISSN: 2092-6790
Virtual maneuvering test in CFD media in presence of free surface

Ahmad Hajivand and S. Hossein Mousavizadegan
Maritime Engineering Department, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
Received 23 August 2014; Revised 7 February 2015; Accepted 24 March 2015
ABSTRACT: Maneuvering oblique towing test is simulated in a Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD) environment to
obtain the linear and nonlinear velocity dependent damping coefficients for a DTMB 5512 model ship. The simulations
are carried out in freely accessible OpenFOAM library with three different solvers, rasInterFoam, LTSInterFoam and
interDyMFoam, and two turbulence models, k- and SST k- in presence of free surface. Turning and zig-zag maneuvers are simulated for the DTMB 5512 model ship using the calculated damping coefficients with CFD. The comparison
of simulated results with the available experimental shows a very good agreement among them.
KEY WORDS: Computational fluid dynamic (CFD); OpenFOAM; Linear hydrodynamic coefficients; Nonlinear hydrodynamic coefficients; Maneuver.
INTRODUCTION
Maneuverability is an important quality of marine vehicles. It should be controlled during various design stages and at the
end of building the vessels. It has influences on efficiency and safety of marine transportation system. Maneuvering of a marine
vehicle is judged based on its course keeping, course changing and speed changing abilities. The regulation bodies and international marine organizations such as IMO recommend criteria to investigate ship and other marine vehicles maneuvering
quality (IMO, 2002a; 2002b).
Maneuverability of a ship or another marine vehicle may be predicted by model tests, mathematical models or both.
Mathematical models for prediction of marine vehicle maneuverability may be divided into two main categories called as
hydrodynamic models, and response models. The hydrodynamic models are of two types and recognized as the Abkowitz
(Abkowitz, 1969) and MMG (Yoshimura, 2005) models. The Abkowitz model is based on the Taylor series expansion of
hydrodynamic forces and moments about suitable initial conditions. The MMG model, also called as modular model, decomposes hydrodynamic forces and moments into three components namely: the bare hull; rudder; and propeller. The response
model investigates the relationship for the motion responses of the vehicle to the rudder action and used to investigate the
course control problems (Nomoto, 1960)
The hydrodynamic models, especially the Abkowitz formulation, are more suitable for computer simulation. It contains
several derivatives that are known as the hydrodynamic coefficients. These hydrodynamic coefficients should be determined in
advance to proceed into the predicting the maneuvering characteristics of a marine vehicle. These hydrodynamic coefficients
are named as added mass and damping coefficients. All of them are function of the geometry of the vessel but the added mass
Corresponding author: S. Hossein Mousavizadegan, e-mail: hmousavi@aut.ac.ir
This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0)
which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/15 3:29 PM
541
coefficients depend on the acceleration of the vessel while the damping coefficients are velocity dependent. The added mass
coefficients can be computed through the solution of the non-viscous fluid flow around the vessel. The damping coefficients are
due to the wave formation in the free surface of the water and the effect of the viscosity. The total damping coefficients may be
obtained through the solution of viscous fluid flow around the vessel.
There are several methods to obtain hydrodynamic coefficients such as theoretical approach, semi empirical formulas,
captive model tests, and CFD. Theoretical approach is limited to slender bodies and do not consider the interaction between the
hull and the appendages. It can provide the added mass coefficients and the part of damping coefficients due to the wave formation on the free surface of water. Semi empirical formulas are obtained using linear regression analysis of captive model test
data. They can only provide the linear coefficients for some specific geometrical shape and are inaccurate when the particulars
of vessel are outside of the database. The captive model tests provide the hydrodynamic coefficients through the running the
tests: Oblique Towing Test (OTT), Rotating Arm Test (RAT) or Circular Motion Test (CMT) and Planar Motion Mechanism
(PMM) test. OTT and PMM test are done in a towing tank and RAT is run in a maneuvering basin. Oblique towing-tank tests
provide the damping coefficients depend on the translational velocities while rotating arm tests give the angular velocity
dependent coefficients. Planar motion mechanism tests can provide all the damping and added mass coefficients (Lewis, 1988).
These model tests are expensive, time consuming and their results include the scaling effects due to inconsistency of Reynolds
number between the ship and the model.
CFD can also be applied to obtain the hydrodynamic coefficients of a marine vehicle such as a ship. CFD methods are used
DNS, LES and RANS approaches to solve the fluid flow equation for a viscous flow such as the flow around a maneuvering
ship. DNS and LES need very high computational cost. Therefore RANS model is employed.
Application of RANS to solve the maritime problems goes back to Wilson et al. (1998) and Gentaz et al. (1999) where the
results are largely unsatisfying. By the increasing growth of computing capacities and recent progress in RANS models, stunning advances in this field are achieved. Nowadays, CFD is crucial tool for various aspect of a marine vehicle hydrodynamics
such as ship resistance and propeller performance not only for research but also as a design tool. One of the most recently and
important application of CFD in marine industry is computation of hydrodynamic coefficients of marine vehicles by simulating
the captive model tests. Sarkar et al. (1997) develop a new computationally efficient technique to simulate the 2-D flow over
axisymmetric AUVs by Using the CFD software PHOENICS. Nazir and Wang (2010) and Zhang and Cai (2010) apply the
commercial CFD software Fluent to obtain hydrodynamic coefficients of 3-D fins and an AUV, respectively. Tyagi and Sen
(2006) compute transverse hydrodynamic coefficients of an AUV using a CFD commercial software. The hydrodynamic forces
and moments on an AUV due to the deflection of control surfaces are investigated using ANSYS Fluent commercial CFD
software by Dantas and De Barros (2013). Ray et al. (2009) applies CFD software Fluent to compute linear and nonlinear hydrodynamic coefficients of the SUBOFF submarine in an unrestricted fluid flow. There are very few works where CFD is used
to predict the maneuvering of surface ships. Simonsen et al. (2012) simulate the fixed OTT for the KCS model by employing
the commercial CFD software STAR-CCM+ to calculate the hydrodynamic coefficients.
The OpenFOAM software is applied to simulate the OTT for a DTMB 5512 model ship, shown in Fig. 1 with the particulars given in Table 1, in presence of free surface. OpenFOAM is an open source library that numerically solves a wide range
of problems in fluid dynamics from laminar to turbulent flows. It contains an extensive set of standard solvers to solve various
ranges of CFD problems. Jasak (2009) describes the objected oriented libraries of OpenFOAM package.
The fluid flow around a ship body is usually turbulent in presence of the free surface. The suitable OpenFOAM solvers for
such cases are: rasInterFoam, interDyMFoam, and LTSInterFoam. The rasInterFoam solver is for the unsteady, incompressible,
immiscible fluid flows. It applies Volume of Fluid (VOF) for tracking free surface and library of Reynolds-Averaged Simulation (RAS) turbulence models to consider effects of turbulence. In addition to this unsteady solver, computations are carried out
using quick and reliable quasi-steady VOF solver known as LTSInterFoam (user guide of OpenFOAM). Finally, interDyM
Foam solver is applied to investigate the effects of dynamic trim and sinkage on damping coefficients. InterDyMFoam applied
6DOF solver to perform translations and rotations in space and solve vessel motion equations.
Fig. 1 DTMB 5512 bare hull model (Yoon, 2009).
Unauthenticated
542
Table 1 Geometrical data for DTMB 5512 model (Yoon, 2009).

LPP
[m]
3.048
[m]
0.410
[m]
0.136
[m ]
0.086
[m2]
1.371
CB
[-]
0.506
The turbulence models k- and SST k- are used and the simulations are done for restrained and free conditions, to
investigate dynamic trim and draft effects on hydrodynamic coefficients. The computations are done up to large drift angles to
provide the possibilities of finding the nonlinear coefficients. Finally free running maneuver tests are simulated for three solvers
based on the hydrodynamic coefficients obtained from CFD. The results are compared with the available data based on
experimental results (Yoon, 2009). It is found that the results of simulations comply with the existing results especially for
rasInterFoam solver.
FLUID FLOW MODELLING

The unsteady viscous flow around a marine vehicle is governed by the Navier-Stokes equations. Navier-Stokes equations
can be applied to both laminar and turbulent flow but a very fine meshing is necessary to capture all the turbulence effects in a
turbulent flow regime. The Reynolds-averaged Navier Stokes (RANS) equations can also be applied to model the turbulent
flow. The RANS equations may be given according to Rusche, 2002 as follows for an incompressible flow.
U = 0
U
+ ( UU ) ( eff U ) = p* g R + U eff + c
t
(1)
(2)
where U is the velocity vector, the density, eff the effective viscosity which can be defined as eff=+turb ( is the dynamic
viscosity and turb is the turbulent kinetic viscosity), p* the pressure, g the gravity acceleration vector, R the position vector,
the surface tension coefficient, the free surface curvature. In addition, cis the volume fraction that is defined as ( Vair / Vtotal )
and is obtained by solution of the advection equation (Rusche, 2002).
c
+ cU + c(1 c)U a = 0
t
(3)
where Ua is velocity field suitable to compress the interface, U a = min ac U , max( U ) in which ac is a constant which
specifies the enhancement of interface compression. For further reference regarding the governing equations see (Ubbink,
1997).
Transport equation is solved for volume fraction to track free surface. At free surface the fluid density, , and viscosity, ,
are calculated as follows (Hirt et al., 1981)
rrr
=air c + water (1 c)
(4)
=
air c + water (1 c)
(5)
Unauthenticated
543
There is no a general accepted turbulence model for all kinds of fluid flow problems. The k- and SST k- model are used
to model the turbulence effects. The two equation turbulence model k- is the most frequently used turbulence model where the
effect of Reynolds stresses is considered as an additional eddy viscosity which is a property of the flow. Eddy viscosity
expressed as:
t = C
k2
(6)
where k is the turbulence kinetic energy per unit mass, is the rate of the dissipation of the turbulence kinetic energy per unit
mass and C is a dimensionless constant of a normal value of 0.09. The turbulent kinetic energy and the dissipation rate are
calculated from the solution of transport equations (Ferziger and Peric, 2002). The SST k- turbulence model has a precise
formulation and uses the standard k- model in the inner part of the boundary layer, with the standard k- in the free stream.
The notation is the specific dissipation rate. The SST k- is accurate and reliable for a wider class of flows especially for
boundary layer regions and adverse pressure gradient flows (Menter et al., 2003)
Mesh generation
Finite Volume Method (FVM) is the common approach that is applied to solve RANS equations in computational domain.
OpenFOAM implements a cell-centered FVM. Domain dimensions are selected sufficient large to avoid back flow at high drift
angles. Distance of the inlet and outlet boundary from ship center is considered 2.5 LPP and 4 LPP, respectively. The side boundaries are located at 3.5 LPP and the top and bottom boundary is located at 1 LPP and 1.5 LPP from the free surface, respectively
(Fig. 2).
There are different meshing strategies to discretize the computational domain (Seo et al., 2010). One of the common method
in OpenFOAM is to apply SnappyHexMesh method. In this method first a hexahedral background grid is created and then the
mesh around boundaries are refined. The overall view of the mesh around the hull bow is displayed in Fig. 3. To solve the
boundary layer close to the ship hull the flow nearby to the boundary is modeled by empirical wall function to save a large
number of grid points. Park et al. (2013) investigate implementation of the wall function for the prediction of ship resistance.
The wall function is applicable if the non-dimensional wall distance, y+, be in the range 30<y+<100. The y+ values on the hull
surface is around 30 that show boundary layer prediction is well. Distribution of y+ for medium mesh on hull is shown in Fig. 4.
Fig. 2 Illustration of computational domain.
Fig. 3 Mesh around the hull.
Fig. 4 y+ distribution around hull.
Unauthenticated
544
Boundary conditions
Appropriate boundary conditions on the free surface, fluid domain boundaries and ships hull must be applied to create a
well-posed system of equations. The boundaries of domain split into patches as shown in Fig. 2. The boundary conditions are
chosen such that to avoid back flow and lateral wall effects. The velocity and pressure conditions for each patch are presented in
Table 2. The fixed value condition, Dirichlet condition, is applied for velocity condition at inlet and hull boundaries. For sides
boundaries the symmetry plane condition is a Neumann condition which means pressure, tangential velocities and turbulence
quantities have a zero gradient normal to the surface but for the normal velocity component, a Dirichlet condition, is applied.
For the zero gradient boundary condition, the near wall cell value is set for boundary value. The fixed flux pressure condition is
set for inlet and ship hull boundaries. This condition modifies the pressure gradient in order that the boundary flux matches the
velocity boundary condition. These conditions are same for three different solvers except for interDyMFoam the moving wall
velocity condition is applied for ship hull boundary.
Table 2 OpenFOAM built-in boundary conditions.
boundary
Velocity
Pressure
Sides
symmetryPlane
symmetryPlane
Inlet
fixedValue
fixedFluxPressure
Outlet
zeroGradient
zeroGradient
Ship
fixedValue
fixedFluxPressure
GRID CONVERGENCE
Mesh sensitivity examination is the most straight-forward and the most consistent technique for determining the order of
discretization error in numerical simulation. In other words, numerical results can be considered as precise and valid if its
solution be independent of the grid. A mesh sensitivity study involves implementation solution on the CFD model, with
sequentially refined grids of reduced mesh size, until the solutions become independent of the mesh size. Three different
meshes with constant grid refinement factor in all three spatial directions,
=
r h=
h=
1.8 , are employed. The
2 / h1
3 / h2
notation hi is a measure of the mesh discretization. Based on experiments, it is desirable that r > 1.3 , this reduces the errors
arising from extrapolation. These cases are labeled 1 1 , 2 and 3 from finest to coarsest mesh. Corresponding solution
for these cases are designated S1 , S 2 and S3 , respectively.
The oblique towing test is simulated with OpenFOAM with three solvers, rasInterFoam, LTSInterFoam and interDyM
Foam, using these grids. The corresponding forces and moment are obtained for a drift angle = 6 at Fn = 0.28 . The
number of meshes and calculated non-dimensional forces and moment coefficients are shown in Table 3-5. The forces and
moment are made dimensionless with water density , inflow speed V , lateral underwater area TLPP and length between
perpendiculars LPP :
X =
FX
0.5 V 2TLPP
(7)
Y=
FY
0.5 V 2TLPP
(8)
N=
MZ
0.5 V 2TL2PP
(9)
Unauthenticated
545
Convergence ratio defined as follows.
R=
21
32
where
21= s2 s1 is the difference between solution of fine and medium grid;

32= s3 s2 is the difference between solution of medium and coarse grid.
The possible convergence situations are:
R>1 : Grid divergence
R<0 : Oscillatory convergence
0<R<1 : Monotonic grid convergence
Table 3 Dimensionless forces and moment for different grid (rasInterFoam).
Number of grids
1,578,257
-0.0192
0.0368
0.0187
3,211,764
-0.0177
0.0333
0.0173
5,685,054
-0.0172
0.0325
0.0166
-0.0169
0.0314
0.0154
EFD
Experimental Fluid Dynamic
Table 4 Dimensionless forces and moment for different grid (LTSInterFoam).

Number of cells
1,578,257
-0.0223
0.0394
0.0227
3,211,764
-0.0191
0.0367
0.0206
5,685,054
-0.0179
0.0354
0.0194
EFD
-0.0169
0.0314
0.0154
Table 5 Dimensionless forces and moment for different grid (InterDyMFoam).

Number of cells
1,578,257
-0.0215
0.0381
0.0211
3,211,764
-0.0186
0.0358
0.0190
5,685,054
-0.0177
0.0344
0.0181
EFD
-0.0169
0.0314
0.0154
If grid convergence occurs, Richardson extrapolation also called h 2 extrapolation is used to estimate convergence rate.
Order of discretization estimated as follows:
p=
ln ( 32 / 21 )
ln(r )
Unauthenticated
(10)
546
After that, Grid Convergence Index (GCI) is defined
GCI ij = FS
eij
r 1
p
(11)
where FS is a safety factor with a value of FS = 1.25 as recommends by Roache (1997) for convergence study with minimum three grids or more. The notation GCI indicates that computed value how far away from exact value. On the other hand,
GCI is a measure of solution changes with more grid refinement. Small value of GCI means that the solution is in exact value
range. Computed convergence ratio, order of discretization and GCI are illustrated in Table 6. Theoretical value for convergence is p=2. The difference is due to grid orthogonally, problem nonlinearities, turbulence modeling. The predicted water
elevation along the plane at y=0.3 m and y=-0.3 m (Fig. 5) for the coarse, medium and fine grid is compared in Figs. 6 and 7,
respectively. It is seen that difference between the water elevation of medium and fine grids is lower than difference between
the water elevation of coarse and medium grids, especially at midship.
Table 6 Estimated convergence ratio, order of discretization and GCI for different solvers.
rasInterFoam
LTSInterFoam
interDyMFoam
0.3333
0.2286
0.5000
0.3750
0.4815
0.5714
0.3103
0.6087
0.4286
1.8691
2.5110
1.1792
1.6687
1.2435
0.9521
1.9906
0.8446
1.4415
GCIfine
0.0182
0.0091
0.0527
0.0503
0.0426
0.1031
0.0286
0.0791
0.0466
Fig. 5 Plane section at y=0.3 and y=-0.3.
Fig. 6 Comparison of water elevation along the cut at

y=0.3 for different grids for = 6 at Fn=0.28.
Fig. 7 Comparison of water elevation along the cut at

y=-0.3 for different grids for = 6 at Fn=0.28.
Unauthenticated
547
Difference between the simulation results of fine grids and medium grids are shown in Table 7. It is seen that the average
change is approximately 2.4-6.7% but the computational time is significantly increased from medium to fine grids. Therefore,
the medium grid is applied throughout this study to obtain solutions with minimum computational effort.
Table 7 Difference between fine and medium results.
Solver
E % X
E % Y
E % N
rasInterFoam
2.9
2.4
4.2
LTSInterFoam
6.7
3.5
5.8
InterDyMFoam
5.0
4.0
4.7
COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMIC SIMULATIONS

The fluid flow around DTMB 5512 model ship is simulated with and without drift angle with respect to the fluid flow
direction. For the case without drift angle, the resistance, dynamic trim and sinkage can be obtained. This is called as resistance
simulation. For the case with drift angle which is called as OTT, the lateral velocity dependent damping coefficients can be
obtained. All computation are done with PIMPLE (merged PISO-SIMPLE model) algorithm for pressure-velocity coupling.
The second-order upwind scheme is applied for advection term in momentum equation.
Resistance simulation
The resistance tests are simulated to investigate the effect of dynamic trim and sinkage on ship resistance and validate
interDyMFoam results with available EFD data. In this solver, the relative motion is expressed by the grid deformation. The
deformation of grids on hull is obtained from the equation of motion solution. On the domain boundaries grid are considered
fixed. The solution algorithm of interDyMFoam is given in Fig. 8. The resistance, dynamic trim and sinkage of DTMB 5512
model ship is computed for Froude number =
Fn 0.05 0.45 with an increment of 0.05 at zero drift angle. The resistance
RT
coefficient is defined as CT =
, where RT is the total resistance that is equal to the drag force, S is the wetted sur0.5 SV 2
face of the model ship and V is the inflow velocity.
Fig. 8 InterDyMFoam solution algorithm (Schmode et al., 2009).

The resistance coefficient is obtained by finding the solution with all three solvers and compared with the experimental data
(EFD) given in Olivieri et al. (2001) in Fig. 9. The solution with rasInterFoam provides good prediction with an error up to 10%
Unauthenticated
548
for different Froude numbers. The interDyMFoam solver gives a good prediction of CT for Fn < 0.2 with an average error of
4% with respect to EFD but for Fn > 0.2 the error increases up to 14%. The solver LTSInterFoam provides the solution with
an error around 12%.
Fig. 9 Compare computed and experimental

resistance coefficients Vs. Froude number.
Fig. 10 Comparison of computed and experimental trim angle variation for various Fn.
The dynamic trim and sinkage results are obtained from interDyMFoam solver and compared with EFD in Figs. 10 and 11.
The CFD solution for moderate Froude numbers ( Fn < 0.4 ) have good agreement with EFD. It indicates that the dynamic
simulations using interDyMFoam solver gives reasonably accurate predictions especially for Fn < 0.4 .
Fig. 11 Comparison of computed and experimental sinkage variation for various Fn.
Pure drift simulation
The OTT is simulated in OpenFOAM to evaluate the linear and nonlinear velocity dependent damping coefficients. OTT is
done with a constant inflow speed of at various drift angles . A right handed coordinate system fixed to the body is defined
so that x and y axis are longitudinal and transverse axes as depicted in Fig. 12. The z axis is the vertical axis and positive downward. The components of the flow velocity along the x and y axis are u = V cos and v = V sin . The
body is acted by a hydrodynamic force with components X and Y along the longitudinal and transverse axes respectively.
The body is also acted by a moment N about the vertical axis z . If the initial condition is defined when the drift angle is zero
and considering the port and starboard symmetry, the components of hydrodynamic force and moment may be given as follows
using Taylor series expansion.
Unauthenticated
549
Fig. 12 Earth- and ship-fixed coordinate systems (Yoon, 2009).

=
X X 0 + X vv v 2
(12)
=
Y Yv v + Yvvv v 3
(13)
=
N N v v + N vvv v 3
(14)
where X vv , Yv , Yvvv , N v and N vvv are transverse velocity dependent damping coefficients. The coefficients Yv and N v are
the linear coefficients and the rest are nonlinear ones. Simulation of OTT at various drift angle provides the forces X and
Y and moment N . By using a curve fitting to the data of forces and moment as a function of , the hydrodynamic derivatives
or coefficients X vv , Yv , Yvvv , N v and N vvv are obtained.
The Simulation of OTT on CFD environment with OpenFOAM is done at drift angle = 0, 2, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 20
degrees with two Froude numbers Fn = 0.138, 0.28. Furthermore to investigate the port-starboard symmetry on hydrodynamic
forces, simulation is also done at drift angle = -6 degrees. These correspond to the model test program has been done by
Yoon (2009) at Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research (IIHR) to provide the validation tool.
To choose the appropriate turbulence model, simulations for OTT at Fn = 0.28 are done with rasInterFoam solver using k-
and SST k- turbulence models. The predicted wave patterns around the body are depicted in Fig. 13 with zero drift angle for
using k- and SST k- turbulence models. The non-dimensional transverse force Y ' and yaw moment N ' compared with EFD
in Figs. 14 and 15. The forces X and Y and moment N are made non-dimensional using (7), (8) and (9), respectively. The
turbulence model SST k- gives a more accurate solution. Accordingly, all simulations are done with SST k- turbulence
model for the solvers rasInterFoam, LTSInterFoam and interDyMFoam at different drift angle and Froude numbers. The
interDyMFoam solver are applied to investigate the effects of dynamic trim and sinkage on hydrodynamic forces, moment and
derivatives.
Fig. 13 Comparison of predicted wave pattern for the k-e (bottom) and SST k-w (top).
Unauthenticated
550
Fig. 14 Computed and experimental dimensionless

transverse force for static maneuver.
Fig. 15 Computed and experimental dimensionless yaw moment for static maneuver.
Predicted wave patterns are shown in Figs. 16 to 19 for = 6, 9, 16, 20 degrees and Fn = 0.28 . The contours in these
figures are the iso-elevation lines. The water elevation around the body is changing in a nonlinear pattern with variation of the
drift angle. The numerical solutions for non-dimensional longitudinal and transverse forces are shown in Figs. 20 and 21as a
function of drift angle for Fn = 0.138 with solvers rasInterFoam, LTSInterFoam and interDyMFoam. The experimental results for fixed condition, without dynamic trim and sinkage, are also depicted in these figures for comparison.
Fig. 16 Comparison of predicted wave

pattern for = 6 at Fn=0.28.



Unauthenticated
Fig. 20 Computed and experimental longitudinal

force for static maneuver at Fn=0.138.
551
Fig. 21 Computed and experimental transverse

The solutions for non-dimensional longitudinal force should be symmetrically about = 0 for identical drift angle to port
or to starboard due to the symmetrical shape of the body. The experimental solutions do not show such a trend at Fn = 0.138 .
The non-dimensional transverse force should have identical value with different sign for identical drift angle to port and starboard due to the symmetrical shape of the body. The experimental data show also such a trend approximately. The LTSInterFoam solver does not give accurate results for non-dimensional transverse force in compare with EFD especially at large but
the interDyMFoam solver provides relatively accurate solutions.
Fig. 22 Computed and experimental longitudinal

Fig. 24 Computed and experimental yaw moment

for static maneuver at Fn=0.138.
Fig. 23 Computed and experimental transverse

Fig. 25 Computed and experimental yaw moment

for static maneuver for Fn=0.28.
Unauthenticated
552
The numerical and experimental results for non-dimensional longitudinal and transverse forces are shown in Figs 22 and 23
for Fn = 0.28 as a function of . The numerical solutions with the rasInterFoam solver are more accurate for both nondimensional longitudinal and transverse forces in compare with EFD. The non-dimensional yaw moment is also depicted in
Figs 24 and 25 as a function of for Fn = 0.138, 0.28 , respectively. The N graph should demonstrate a symmetrical
shape with respect about = 0 . The experimental results show approximately such a trend for both Fn as depicted in Figs. 24
and 25. The solver rasInterFoam gives more accurate results in compare with EFD.
The Solver interDyMFoam provides the solutions for Hydrodynamic forces and moment while the dynamic trim and
sinkage exist. The solutions with the interDyMFoam are different than the EFD as shown in Figs. 21, 23, 24 and 25. The differences may exist due to the effect of dynamic trim and sinkage. By increasing the drift angle the difference between transverse
force and yaw moment obtained by interDyMFoam and experimental results is increased.
The derivatives Yv and N v can be obtained from the transverse force and yaw moment curves against from chain rule
as follows.
Yv
=
1
Y
=
= 0 v v = 0 V
1
v
1
V
1
N
Y
=
= 0 v v = 0 V
Nv
=
(15)
=0
v =0
(16)
=0
The derivatives Y and N are the slope of the transverse force and yaw moment curves against drift angle at = 0.
The values of Yv and N v are obtained using (15, 16) and are given in Tables 8 and 9 for Fn = 0.138, 0.28 , respectively,
with various solvers. The experimental values of these derivatives are also tabulated for comparison. Difference between the
solvers results and EFD are shown in Table 10. It is seen that the rasInterFoam solver provides more accurate results.
Table 8 Linear hydrodynamic coefficients (Fn=0.138).
coefficients
EFD
CFD (rasInterFoam)
CFD (LTSInterFoam)
CFD (interDyMFoam)
Yv
-0.2637
-0.2442
-0.3010
-0.2996
Nv
-0.1396
-0.1321
-0.1508
-0.1484
Table 9 Linear hydrodynamic coefficients (Fn=0.280).

Coefficients
EFD
CFD (rasInterFoam)
CFD (LTSInterFoam)
CFD (interDyMFoam)
Yv
-0.2961
-0.2694
-0.3405
-0.3346
Nv
-0.1667
-0.1550
-0.1833
-0.1824
Table 10 Difference between EFD and CFD for linear HDC.

Fn=0.138
Coefficients
rasInterFoam
error
Fn=0.28
LTSInterFoam
interDyMFoam
rasInterFoam
LTSInterFoam interDyMFoam
E % Yv
7.39
14.14
13.61
9.02
14.99
13.00
E % Nv
5.37
8.02
6.30
7.02
9.96
9.42
Unauthenticated
553
The nonlinear derivatives, X vv , Yvvv , and N vvv are obtained from the longitudinal and transverse forces and yaw moment
curves against by using chain rule of differentiation.
X vv
=
2 X
1
=
X
2
= 0 v V
=
Yvvv
3Y
1
=
Y
3 = 0 v V
=
N vvv
3 N
1
=
N
3 = 0 v V
(17)
=0
(18)
=0
(19)
=0
The nonlinear derivative X is obtained by finding the second derivative of the longitudinal force curve against drift angle at
= 0. This can be obtained by using a curve fitting and finding the second derivatives of the fitted curve. The derivatives Y
and N are also obtained by calculating the third derivative of the transverse force and yaw moment curves against drift
angle at = 0. These are obtained by using curve fittings to the related data. The solutions for these derivatives are given in
Tables 11 and 12 for Fn = 0.138, 0.28 , respectively, with various solvers. The experimental results are also given in these
tables for comparison. The differences among the numerical solutions and experimental solutions are more for nonlinear derivatives than the linear ones. Difference between the solvers results and EFD are shown in Table 13. However, the rasInterFoam
solver provides more accurate results than the other two solvers. The interDyMFoam provides the less accurate results than the
others. It may be due to the effects of dynamic trim and sinkage that exist in solution with interDyMFoam solver.
Table 11 Non-linear hydrodynamic coefficients (Fn=0.138).
Coefficients
EFD
CFD (rasInterFoam)
CFD (LTSInterFoam)
CFD (interDyMFoam)
Yvvv
-1.6256
-1.3278
-2.0329
-2.0970
Nvvv
-0.3426
-0.4076
-0.4375
-0.4450
Xvv
-0.0301
-0.0363
-0.0385
-0.0392
Table 12 Non-linear hydrodynamic coefficients (Fn=0.280).

coefficients
EFD
CFD (rasInterFoam)
CFD (LTSInterFoam)
CFD (interDyMFoam)
Yvvv
-1.9456
-2.3150
-2.4397
-2.5487
Nvvv
-0.4355
-0.3574
-0.5504
-0.5681
Xvv
-0.1528
-0.1812
-0.1949
-0.1983
Table 13 Difference between EFD and CFD for Non-linear HDC.

Fn=0.138
Coefficients
rasInterFoam
error
Fn=0.28
LTSInterFoam
interDyMFoam
rasInterFoam
LTSInterFoam
interDyMFoam
E % Yvvv
18.32
20.04
22.48
14.49
20.25
23.66
E % Nvvv
15.95
21.69
23.01
13.75
20.88
23.34
E % Xvv
17.08
21.82
23.21
14.32
21.60
22.95
Unauthenticated
554
MANEUVERING SIMULATION BASED ON CFD DATA

The regulations bodies assign some standard maneuvers to evaluate the maneuvering qualities of a marine vehicle. The
steady turning and zig-zag maneuvers are the maneuvers that are designed to provide the turning, yaw checking and coursekeeping abilities of a marine vehicle. Steady turning maneuver is done at a desired speed by deflecting the rudder to a
maximum angle (35 deg) to port or starboard from a zero yaw angle until a steady turning circle is obtained. Tactical diameter,
advance, transfer and steady turning radius are the essential parameters that are obtained from this maneuver. Zig-zag maneuver
is done by deflecting the rudder angle to a desired angle such as 20 to port or starboard and keep it until heading angle
approach to 20 then the rudder angle shifted to other side. Overshoot angles and initial turning time to second execute are
essential parameters that are obtained from the zig-zag maneuver.
The simulations of these two maneuvers are obtained through the solution of the maneuvering equation in horizontal plane.
Using the body coordinate system defined in Fig. 12, the dynamic motion equation of the body are defined in horizontal plane
as follows.
(m X u )u =
X
(20)
(m Yv )v + (mxG Yr )r =
Y
(21)
(mxG N v )v + ( I Z N r )r =
N
(22)
where m is the mass of the body, I Z is the moment of inertia of the body about z axis, u and v are the velocity of the
body along x and y directions, respectively. The notations u and v are the acceleration of the body along x and y
directions, respectively, and r and r are the angular velocity and acceleration around the z -axis of the body and xG is the
longitudinal position of the center of gravity. The notations X and Y are the external forces on the body along x and y
directions, respectively and N is the external moment on the body about z -axis.
The external forces and moments may be divided into hydrodynamic forces and moments due to the surrounding fluid, the
environmental forces and moments due to the wind and waves and the other forces and moments due to the action of propulsion
and steering systems. The hydrodynamic forces and moments are also divided into added mass forces and moments due to the
fluid accelerations, damping forces and moments due to fluid velocity and restoring forces and moments due to the interaction
of the buoyancy and gravity forces acting on the body. The steering forces and moments are the forces and moments acting on
the body due to the action of the rudder (s) or other maneuvering devices. It is assumed that there are no wind and wave forces
and the body is equipped with a rudder at the stern.
The motion equations that are used to simulate the turning and zig-zag maneuvers are (21) and (22). These two equations
are called as the steering equations for ships. The steering equations may be given as following (Yoon, 2009).
1
1
(m Yv )v + (mxG Yr )r =Yv v + Yvvv v 3 + Yvrr vr 2
6
2
+Yvu v(u V ) + (Yr mV )r
(23)
1
1
1
+ Yrrr r 3 + Yrvv rv 2 + Y + Y 3
6
2
6
(mxG N v )v + ( I Z N r )r = N v v +
1
1
N vvv v 3 + N vrr vr 2
6
2
+ N vu v(u V ) + ( N r mV )r
1
1
1
+ N rrr r 3 + N rvv rv 2 + N + N 3
6
2
6
Unauthenticated
(24)
555
where Yv and N v are the derivative of the transverse force and yaw moment with respect to acceleration v . The notations Yr
and N r are the derivative of the transverse force and yaw moment with respect to acceleration r . The parameters
Yv , Yvvv , Yvvr , Yvu , Yr , Yrrr , Yvrr and Yrvv are the various order derivatives of the transverse force with respect to the variables written
as indices. The notations N v , N vvv , N vvr , N vu , N r , N rrr , N vrr and N rvv are the different order derivatives of yaw moment with
respect to the variables written as indices. The parameter is rudder angle and Y , Y , N and N are the various order
derivatives of transverse force and yaw moment with respect to the rudder angle. The hydrodynamic coefficients Yv , Yvvv , N v
and N vvv are obtained from CFD simulation by OpenFOAM. The others are taken from available model test data given in
Yoon (2009) as shown in Table 12. The mass of the model ship is 86 kg and the mass moment of inertia is 49.99 kgm 2
(Yoon, 2009).
To calculate the ship path during each maneuver, initial values for v, r and are set to zero. A time step such as h is
considered and the new values for v, r at time t1= t0 + h are found from the solution of (23) and (24). The procedure is
repeated using the values of v, r at time tn to obtain the new v, r for a time tn +1= tn + h and so on. The difference of turning
and zig-zag maneuver is about definition of the rudder deflection as a function of time. To simulate turning maneuver the
rudder deflects with constant deflection rate 0.04 rad/s up to maximum rudder angle, 35 deg, and then rudder angle set to this
angle. But for zig-zag maneuver first rudder deflects with constant rate 0.04 rad/s up to 20 deg and keep it until the ship heading
achieved 20 deg. After that the rudder is deflected to other side.
The Fourth-order Runge-Kutta method and Euler algorithm are applied to simulate the turning and zig-zag maneuvers,
respectively. The time step is set to be equal to h = 0.1 s in simulation of the maneuvers. After finding the values of v, r for
each maneuver at various times t , the yaw angle and the position of the ship relative to a fixed coordinate system are calculated
by numerical integration of the following equations during each maneuver.
(t ) = r (t )dt
0
=
x(t )
=
y (t )
(t ) v(t ) sin (t ) ) dt
( u (t ) cosyy
(t ) + v(t ) cos (t ) ) dt
( u (t ) sinyy
t
(25)
The resultant trajectory of turning and zig-zag maneuver are shown in Figs. 26 and 27, respectively. The parameters of
turning maneuver are given in Table 13 for different solvers at Fn = 0.28 . All results are compared with each other and with
EFD. The rasInterFoam solver provides a good prediction of the maneuvers in compare with EFD.
Fig. 26 Simulation of turning circle of ship

with =35 deg for Fn=0.28.
Unauthenticated
Fig. 27 Simulation of 20/20 deg

zigzag of ship for Fn=0.28.
556
Table 14 Hydrodynamic derivatives of steering equation Yoon (2009).
Yv
-0.1111
Yr
-0.0136
Yvrr
-1.3683
Yvu
-0.0242
Yr
-0.0457
Yrrr
-0.0570
Yvvr
-1.7067
0.0586
-0.0097
N v
-0.0131
N r
-0.0096
N vrr
-0.4011
N vu
-0.0397
Nr
-0.0487
N rrr
-0.0342
N vvr
-0.5512
-0.0293
0.0048
Table 15 Turning test characteristics for Fn=0.28.

rasInterFoam
interDyMFoam
LTSInterFoam
EFD
Tactical Diameter
10.97
11.33
13.13
11.81
Advance
17.25
16.01
19.86
18.04
Steady turning radius
5.70
5.52
6.66
5.91
Transfer
3.36
2.43
3.76
3.40
CONCLUSION
Maneuverability is an important hydrodynamic quality of a marine vehicle. The maneuvering characteristics of a marine
vehicle should be predicted during the various design stages and validated after construction of the vessel during the trial tests.
There are various models to predict the maneuvering properties of a marine vehicle and among them the Abkowitz model is
used more than the others. In this model, the external forces and moments are defined using hydrodynamic derivatives or
coefficients based on Taylor series expansion. These hydrodynamic coefficients should be found in advance to predict the
maneuvering properties of a marine vehicle. Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) is used to found some of these hydrodynamic coefficients of a model ship by virtual simulating OTT.
OpenFOAM is applied to simulate OTT and finding the lateral velocity dependent damping coefficients of a DTMB 5512
model ship. The solutions are obtained by three different solvers: rasInterFoam (unsteady solver), LTSInterFoam (steady solver)
and interDyMFoam (dynamic solver). These solvers are based on RANS formulation and it is required to use an appropriate
turbulence model. Two different well known models k- and SST k-w are examined in simulations and the results indicate that
Unauthenticated
557
SST k- gives more accurate turbulence model because of its good performance to predict separated flow at high drift angles.
Comparison of the numerical results with EFD shows that the rasInterFoam solver gives more accurate solutions than two
other solvers but needs much more computational time. Although the LTSInterFoam solver gives less accurate results than
rasInterFoam solver but it reaches to steady-state solution quickly by manipulating the time step for each grid. The computational time for LTSInterFoam is usually 15-25% less than rasInterFoam. The interDyMFoam solver provides an accurate prediction of dynamic motion for a moderate Fn and is useful to calculate the effect of dynamic trim and sinkage on hydrodynamic
coefficients.
The hydrodynamic forces and moments have nonlinear variations and therefore, the linear and nonlinear coefficients should
be obtained to simulate a maneuver accurately. Virtual simulation by CFD can be done in a wide range of drift angle and
consequently, the linear and nonlinear coefficients can be obtained more precisely. This can help at the preliminary design stage
to obtain optimal maneuvering performance, since CFD is a precise and affordable tool.
It should be indicated that application of CFD to calculate hydrodynamic coefficients has been limited to underwater marine
vehicles without the effect of the free surface. The presence of free surface makes the fluid flow a two phase flow and needs
much more computational efforts. This research work is unique due to the applications of CFD to find the hydrodynamic coefficient to a model ship and of OpenFOAM software to simulate the fluid flow around the body. The source code of OpenFOAM
is freely accessible which affords a robust and very flexible advance environment for a viscous ship maneuvering simulation.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the computing time granted by the High Performance Computing Research Center
(HPCRC) at Amirkabir University of Technology.
REFERENCES
Abkowitz, M.A., 1969. Stability and motion control of ocean vehicles. Massachusetts and London: MIT, Cambridge.
Beck, R. and Reed, A. Modern seakeeping computations for ships. Twenty Third Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics,
Val de Reuil, France, 17-22 September 2000, pp.1-45.
Dantas, J.L.D. and de Barros, E.A., 2013. Numerical analysis of control surface effects on AUV manoeuvrability. Journal
of Applied Ocean Research, 42, pp.168-181.
Ferziger, H. J. and Peric, M., 2002. Computational methods for fluid dynamics. 3rd edition. Berlin: Springer.
Gentaz, L., Guillerm, P.E., Alessandrini, B. and Delhommeau, G. Three-dimensional free-surface viscous flow around a
ship in forced motion. Proceedings of Seventh International Conference Numerical Ship Hydrodynamic, Nantes,
France, 19-22 July 1999, pp.1-12.
Hirt, C.W. and Nichols, B.D., 1981. Volume of fluid (VOF) method for the dynamics of free boundaries. Journal of Computational Physics, 39, pp.201-225.
IMO (International Maritime Organization), 2002a. Resolution standards for ship maneuverability, MSC.137 (76). London:
IMO.
IMO (International Maritime Organization), 2002b. Explanatory notes to the standards for ship maneuverability, MSC/
Circ 1053. London: IMO.
Jasak, H., 2009. OpenFOAM: Open source CFD in research and industry. International Journal of Naval Architecture and
Ocean Engineering, 1(2), pp.89-94.
Lewis, E.V., 1988. Principles of naval architecture. Jersey City, NJ: The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers.
Menter, F.R., Kuntz, M. and Langtry, R. 2003. Ten Years of industrial experience with the SST turbulence model. Turbulence, Heat and Mass Transfer 4. edited by K. Hanjalic, Y. Nagano, and M. Tummers. New York: Begell House, Inc.
Nazir, Z., Su, Y. and Wang, Z., 2010. A CFD based investigation of the unsteady hydrodynamic coefficients of 3-D fins in
viscous flow. Journal of Marine Science and Application, 9(3), pp.250-255.
Nomoto, K., 1960. Analysis of Kempfs standard maneuver test and proposed steering quality indices. Proceedings of 1st
Symposium on Ship Maneuverability, Department Of The Navy, Maryland, United State of America, 24 -25 May 1960,
pp.275- 304.
Unauthenticated
558
Olivieri, A., Pistani, F., Avanzini, A., Stern, F. and Penna, R., 2001. Towing tank experiments of resistance, sinkage and
trim, boundary layer, wake, and free surface flow around a naval combatant insean 2340 model, IIHR Technical Report
No. 42. Iowa: Iowa institute of hydrolic research, The University of Iowa.
Park, S., Park, S.W., Rhee, S.H., Lee, S.B., Choi, J. and Kang, S.H., 2013. Investigation on the wall function implementation for the prediction of ship resistance. International Journal of Naval architecture and Ocean Engineering, 5(1),
pp.33-46.
Ray, A., Singh, S.N. and Seshadri, V., 2009. Evaluation of linear and nonlinear hydrodynamic coefficients of underwater
vehicles using CFD. Proceedings of the ASME 28th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering,
Honolulu, Hawaii, 31May 5 June 2009, pp.257-265.
Roache, P.J., 1997. Quantification of uncertainty in computational fluid dynamics. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 29,
pp.123-160.
Rusche, H., 2002. Computational fluid synamics of sispersed two-phase flows at high phase fractions. Ph.D thesis. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Imperial College of Science, Technology & Medicine, London.
Sarkar, T., Sayer, P.G. and Fraser, S.M., 1997. A study of autonomous underwater vehicle hull forms using computational
fluid dynamics. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 25(11), pp.1301-1313.
Schmode, D., Bertram, V. and Tenzer, M., 2009. Simulating ship motions and loads using OpenFOAM. 12th Numerical
Towing Tank Symposium, Cortona, Italy, 4-6 October 2009, pp. 148-152.
Seo, J.H., Seol, D.M., Lee, J.H. and Rhee, S.H., 2010. Flexible CFD meshing strategy for prediction of ship resistance and
propulsion performance. International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, 2(3), pp.139-145.
Simonsen, C.D., Otzen, J.F., Klimt, C., Larsen, N.L. and Stern, F., 2012. Maneuvering predictions in the early design phase
using CFD generated PMM data. 29th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Gothenburg, Sweden, 26-31 August 2012.
Tyagi, A. and Sen, D., 2006. Calculation of transverse hydrodynamic coefficients using computational fluid dynamic
approach. Journal of Ocean Engineering, 33, pp.798-809.
Ubbink, O., 1997. Numerical prediction of two fluid systems with sharp interfaces. Ph.D thesis. Department of Mechanical
Engineering, Imperial College of Science.
Wilson, R., Paterson, E. and Stern, F. Unsteady RANS CFD method for naval combatants in waves. Proceedings of 22nd
Symposium Naval Hydrodynamic, Washington, D C., 9-14 August 1998, pp.532-549.
Yoon, H., 2009. Phase-averaged stereo-PIV flow field and Force/moment/motion measurements for surface combatant in
PMM maneuvers. Ph.D thesis. The University of Iowa.
Yoshimura, Y., 2005. Mathematical model for maneuvering ship motion (MMG Model). Workshop on Mathematical
Models for Operations involving Ship-Ship Interaction, Tokyo, August 2005, pp.1-6.
Zhang, H., Xu, Y. and Cai, H., 2010. Using CFD software to calculate hydrodynamic coefficients. Journal of Marine Science and Application, 9, pp.149-155.
Unauthenticated

Virtual Maneuvering Test in CFD Media in Presence of Free Surface

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Virtual Maneuvering Test in CFD Media in Presence of Free Surface

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

SNAK, 2015

Int. J. Nav. Archit. Ocean Eng. (2015) 7:540~558